Comparison of Simulation Softwares

Comparison of simulation softwares.

Carl Stuart.

Technology Paper Series.

Abstract

           This paper compares three simulation softwares, with the aim of selecting the best simulation software that can be used in the backpack manufacturing process. The paper commences with a brief introduction to simulation softwares. The three simulation softwares that are being compared are Arena, Simprocess and Witness 12 simulation software. The criteria that are used to identify the features to be used in the comparison are outlined. The comparisons are then made based on these features. The most suitable simulation software which also has the greatest applicability potential in the firm is then selected and recommended for use in the company.

Simulation Softwares.

Simulation software is used as an analysis and modeling tool in businesses (Kelton, 2010). The multifaceted manufacturing process is highly complex and dynamic in nature, hence the need for it to be programmed (Yuan, 2011). The simulation software is an essential component of an automated manufacturing system. Simulation packages have desirable features that enhance manufacturing simulations in accordance with the terminal objectives (Hupic, 2011). An efficiently programmed manufacturing system ensures that there is optimal productivity and cost-efficiency in the manufacturing process (Yuan, 2011). There are several simulation packages with dissimilar features; hence, it is mandatory for one to compare the software packages prior to selecting the most appropriate software for a particular function (Cedric, 2010). The most appropriate software package must facilitate the design of a simulation model that sufficiently analyses and assesses the operational strategies used in the manufacturing process (Hupic, 2011).

Simulation softwares are categorized into two groups: application-oriented softwares and simulation programming languages. Simulation programming languages software utilizes a specific simulation language to write a program which is subsequently used to construct a model. Simulation programming languages softwares are more cumbersome than application-oriented softwares. Application-oriented simulation software enables the programmer to construct a model using graphic entry with minimal programming (Kelton, 2010). Three simulation packages that are normally used in manufacturing processes are analyzed in this paper. These three are: Witness, Simprocess and Arena.

They all share the certain common features which are outlined hereafter. All three simulation packages are application-oriented softwares. They facilitate construction of models using their integrated programming languages, GUI (graphic-user interface) interfaces and in-built tools. They have in-built error detection tools. Input data and output data analysis is done by in-built statistical tools. They all support export of outputs to Microsoft office applications (McRoberts, 2011).

Each simulation package warrants a brief description. Also, a comparison framework and a method of rating that is used in the comparison of these softwares are described.

Description of simulation packages.

1.     Arena simulation software.

This DES (discrete event simulation) package uses a simulation language and a SIMAN processor. Modules and connector lines are used in the construction of experimental models. The flow of an entity is specified by a connector line. It records statistical data and can output such data as reports. It can be integrated with VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) and other Microsoft technologies. It supports ActiveX controls and Microsoft Visio (Harlow, 2011).

2.     Witness12 simulation software.

This software has in-built professional tools and process optimization functionality which facilitates modular modeling of multifaceted complex industrial processes. It has a flexible platform for assessing manufacturing strategies, testing novel strategies and verifying change settings. Its control options supplements the various experimental modalities. It provides comprehensive reporting of data contained in the element libraries. The report can be exported to Microsoft excel. It has an in-built sustainability and costing support functionalities. It also runs smoothly in 64-bit Windows 7 operating system. The standard reprise licensing protocol facilitate excellent network roams (Percy, 2011).

3.      Simprocess simulation software.

This software combines elaborate flowcharting, animation, statistical analysis, process modeling and ABC (Activity-Based Costing) to provide rapid prototyping and proposal outcomes (Atkins, 2011).

Comparison framework.

Simulation softwares are compared using four different sources: the application, the modeler, the programmer and the end user (Aviles, 2011). The most expedient reporting tool in simulation softwares is spreadsheets. Also, 3D animations provide clear perspectives; and they are thus desirable in simulation softwares (Savory, 2011).

The four basic criteria used in this comparison framework are outlined below: simulation modeling approach (such as event scheduling, process interaction, three phase and activity scanning), reporting tools (either proprietary reporting tools or spreadsheets), time handling (continuous, discrete or hybrid) and animation use (no animation use; or, use of 3D or 2D animations) (Aviles, 2011).

Another criterion that is also used in the comparison framework is the hardware considerations vis-à-vis software considerations. The main aspects considered in this criterion are the coding aspects, user support and software compatibility. Moreover, the following simulation capabilities are considered in this criterion:  visual aspects, statistical facilities, efficiency, experimentation models and testability (Weinar, 2011).

The simulation modeling approach affects the applicability of the software package in an industrial setting. Reporting tools are an efficient way to display exported output data. Animation provides a clear point of view. Time handling is an absolute prerequisite in an industrial setting if optimal productivity and cost-effectiveness are to be realized (Aviles, 2011).

1.      Simulation modeling approaches.

They are categorized into four main approaches (Hannam, 2010):

(a)    Event-Scheduling method.

It has two phases, and hence allows the application to run optimally in the operating system as the phase of conditional events scanning is eliminated. Its demerits are its lack of parsimony and difficult enhancement (Hannam, 2010).

(b)   Three-Phase approach.

It permits simulations of parallelism while concurrently eliminating a deadlock. It scans for bound activities and conditional activities in schedules; hence it slows down the application (Hannam, 2010).

(c)    Activity Scanning.

This approach has two executive phases which supports parsimonious modeling. It lacks a calendar. Its treatment of all activities as conditional activities causes the application to run at a slow speed (Hannam, 2010). SIMPROCESS uses this simulation approach (Atkins, 2011).

(d)   Process-Interaction.

Modelers have a preference for this simulation modeling approach because it avoids slow programs, and it does not consider all the probable logical outcomes of an event. It has simple and clear graphical flowcharts (Hannam, 2010).

During the comparison, the following were noted: Arena and Witness12 refrained from disclosing their simulation approach. SIMPROCESS uses activity-scanning simulation approach (Atkins, 2011).

2.      Reporting tools.

Reporting tools do indicate the input and output capabilities of the software. It also reveals the analysis capabilities of the simulation program. The main reporting tools used by most simulation softwares are Microsoft excel and Microsoft spreadsheets (Taramans, 2011). All the three simulation packages (Arena, Witness 12 and SIMPROCESS) do export their reports to both Microsoft excel and Microsoft spreadsheets (McRoberts, 2011).

3.      2D vs 3D animation.

Both 2D and 3D animations are required during certain stages of the manufacturing process, but with regards to the overall manufacturing process; 3D is expedient as it provides a better point of view (Bollino, 2011). All the simulation packages (SIMPROCESS, Arena and Witness12) use 3D animation in their simulation models (McRoberts, 2011).

4.      Time handling.

An application that uses discrete time handling also has a 3D capability; as it is exemplified by Arena (Harlow, 2011). SIMPROCESSES and Witness12 have not stated their time handling modalities.

Comparison.

In the firm, a simulation package is needed to facilitate the automation of the manufacturing process, material handling, warehousing and inventory. The manufacturing process involves utilization of tools and machines to transform raw materials into finished products (Yuan, 2011). Hence, an appropriate simulation package must be manufacturing-oriented, visual, data-driven and interactive in nature (Bardonnet, 2011). 12 features that are inherent in an automated manufacturing process will be used to rate the three simulation softwares. These features are software compatibility, coding aspects, user support, modeling assistance, general features, visual aspects, testability, efficiency, experimentation   facilities, input/output capabilities, statistical facilities and analysis capabilities (Mordechai, 2011). Each feature used the scaling values outlined below:

1-      Feature not present.

2-      Partial presence (and/or manifestation) of the feature.

3-      Feature clearly present and fully functioning.

The three simulation softwares were rated using the evaluated value score that each one of them had. The formula used to calculate the evaluated value score is as follows (Haider, 2011):

Evaluated Value score = Calculated Value × 3

                                  Maximum Value

with:  Maximum value = Sum of  maximum possible values in each group of features. It is 36 as

                                                there are 12 features and each feature has a maximum score of 3.

          Calculated Value = Sum of actual scores of all the selected group of features.

The table below shows a comparison of the three Softwares in terms of features.

Table 1: Comparison of three simulation softwares based on their features.

FEATURE	ARENA	SIMPROCESS	WITNESS12
Software compatibility	3	3	3
Coding aspects	3	3	3
User support	3	3	3
Modeling assistance	1	3	1
General features	1	3	1
Visual aspects	3	3	3
Testability	3	3	3
Efficiency	2	3	2
Experimentation   facilities	2	3	1
Input/output capabilities	3	3	3
Statistical facilities	3	3	3
Analysis capabilities	3	3	3
EVALUATED VALUE SCORE	2.50	3.00	2.42

According to Table 1, SIMPROCESS simulation software has the highest maximum elevated value score in all the features measured.

                                                             Recommendation.

The most suitable simulation software which also has the greatest applicability potential in the firm is SIMPROCESS 4.9; and in accordance to its better performance compared to Witness12 and Arena® Simulation Software Version 13.50.00, it is recommended for use in the firm.

SIMPROCESS 4.9 has the advantages outlined below over the other two simulation softwares. To start with, it is easier to learn and operate it than the other two simulation tools. Secondly, it is easier to debug, validate and verify it as compared to the other two softwares. Thirdly, it is easier to communicate its intricacies of complicated processes to others as compared to the other two softwares. Also, SIMPROCESS is the most cost-effective software as compared to the other; as it has no hidden costs (purchasing costs or operational costs). In addition, SIMPROCESS has the highest repute among simulation programmers and end-users (Valentin, 2012).

                                                           References.

Atkins, M. (2011). A brief overview of SIMPROCESS in traffic. Current Trends in Simulation,

            34, 93-98.

Aviles, E. (2011). Assessing the Simulator Software. Industrial Engineer, 21 (1), 76-86.

Bardonnet, T. (2011). Desirable Properties of Simulation Software and the Industry. Journal of Advanced Industrial Engineering, 91, 321-329.

Bollino, A. (2011). Animation in industrial Simulation Softwares. Journal of Industrial

            Engineering, 95, 796-806.

Cedric, V. (2010). Applied Simulation Modeling. London: Elsevier.

Haider,W. (2011). Evaluation Models of Simulation Programmes. Industrial Engineer, 9 (8), 86- 96.

Hannam, R.G. (2010). An Evaluation of Approaches to Modeling and Simulating Manufacturing Systems. International Journal of Production Research, 29(2), 297-305.

Harlow, G. (2011). Overview of Arena Simulation Software.  Journal of Industrial Engineering, 25, 898-908.

Hupic, V. (2011). Manufacturing Simulation Software and the Industry. European Journal of

            Engineering, 31, 21-29.

Kelton, W. (2010). Simulation Softwares. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

McRoberts, K. (2011). Qualitative similarities in Application Oriented Simulation Softwares. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 9, 136-144.

Mordechai, A. (2011). An analysis of Automated Manufacturing Process. Journal of Industrial

Engineering, 28, 299-314.

Percy, M. (2011). Analysis of Witness12 Simulation Software.  Journal of Computer

            Engineering, 85, 879-882.

Savory, P. (2011). Ascertaining important features for industrial simulation environments.

            International Journal of Production Research, 27, 211–221.

Taramans, S.R. (2011). Interactive Reporting Tools in Simulation Softwares. Current Trends in Simulation, 35, 496-506.

Valentin, E. (2012). A meta-analysis of SIMPROCESS Simulation Software. Journal of

            Computer Engineering, 66, 67- 75.

Weiner, S.A. (2011). Factors to Consider in Choosing a Simulation System. Industrial Engineer, 40, 65-68.

Yuan, R. (2011). The Industrial Manufacturing Process: An Overview. Industrial Engineer, 576, 593-602.